idnits 2.17.1 draft-sijeon-dmm-deployment-models-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text resembling RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (July 06, 2015) is 3209 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5213' is defined on line 249, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-04 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc (ref. 'I-D.matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc') ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-seite-dmm-dma (ref. 'I-D.seite-dmm-dma') ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7333 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7429 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DMM S. Jeon 3 Internet-Draft Instituto de Telecomunicacoes 4 Intended status: Standards Track Y. Kim 5 Expires: January 7, 2016 Soongsil University 6 July 06, 2015 8 Deployment Models for Distributed Mobility Management 9 draft-sijeon-dmm-deployment-models-00.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document briefly presents available deployment models for 14 distributed mobility management networks, being consisted of mobility 15 management functions: anchoring function, location management, and 16 forwarding management functions defined in RFC7429. Some of the 17 functions are modified on a need to allow potential deployment 18 scenarios support. 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2016. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 3. Deployment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3.1. D1: Distributed AM, LM, and FM (with centralized LM) - 58 All-in-One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3.2. D2: Distributed AF-DP, LM and FM with centralized AF-CP 60 (+ LM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3.3. D3: Distributed AF-DP and FM-DP with centralized AF-CP, 62 LM, and FM-CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 1. Introduction 71 This draft briefly presents available deployment models, consisted of 72 mobility management functions defined in [RFC7429], for distributed 73 mobility management (DMM) networks. With the mobility management 74 functions in [RFC7429], i.e. anchor function (AF), location 75 management function (LM), and forwarding management function (FM), 76 centralized mobility management solutions such as Mobile IP (MIP), 77 Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6), and Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) 78 have been described and decomposed by functional aspects, trying to 79 analyze gaps from distributed mobility management requirement 80 [RFC7333]. In this draft, with the functions, we sketch and describe 81 the deployment models for distributed mobility management networks, 82 accommodating the possible DMM solutions as well as providing an 83 insight to understand the potentials of DMM. We also describe where 84 the presented deployment models are substantiated with solution 85 proposals submitted in DMM WG. 87 2. Conventions and Terminology 89 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT", 90 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 91 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 93 Following terms come from [RFC7429] with modified definition in the 94 AF. Anchoring Function (AF) is defined as a combined control-plane 95 and data-plane functions. For the control-plane function, it 96 allocates an IP address, i.e., Home Address (HoA), or prefix, i.e., 97 Home Network Prefix (HNP) a mobile node, topologically anchored by 98 the advertising node. That is, the anchor node is able to advertise 99 a connected route into the routing infrastructure for the allocated 100 IP prefixes. It also takes a data-plane anchor point where packets 101 destined to the IP address or IP prefix allocated by the anchor 102 should pass through. It can be deployed in a decoupled way, i.e. 103 separated control plane and data plane. In that case, following two 104 terms - AF-CP and AF-DP - are used. AF-CP is responsible of 105 allocating the IP address and advertising a connected route for an 106 associated terminal while AF-DP is responsible of anchoring received 107 data packets destined to the IP address allocated by the anchor. 108 Internetwork Location Management (LM) is a control-plane function, 109 which manages and keeps track of the internetwork location of an MN. 110 The location information may be a binding of the advertised IP 111 address/prefix, e.g., HoA or HNP, to the IP routing address of the 112 MN, or it may be a binding of a node that can forward packets 113 destined to the MN. Forwarding Management (FM) function performs 114 packet interception and forwarding to/from the IP address/prefix 115 assigned to the MN, based on the internetwork location information, 116 either to the destination or to some other network element that knows 117 how to forward the packets to their destination. Following the FM 118 definition in [RFC7429], it may be split into the control plane (FM- 119 CP) and data plane (FM-DP). 121 3. Deployment Models 123 We specify and analyze expected use cases where the MN tries to 124 initiate an application. 126 3.1. D1: Distributed AM, LM, and FM (with centralized LM) - All-in-One 127 +--------------------------+ 128 | (LM) | 129 +--------------------------+ 130 ^ ^ 131 | | 132 | | 133 v v 134 +-------------+ +-------------+ 135 |AF + LM + FM | (<---->) |AF + LM + FM | 136 +-------------+ +-------------+ 138 +------+ 139 | MN | 140 +------+ 142 Figure 1. Distributed AM, LM, and FM functions (with centralized LM) 144 In this deployment model, AF, LM, and FM functions are co-located in 145 every mobility router deployed at edge. This model can be called 146 All-in-One for DMM. Depending on the use of the central LM, the 147 model can be distinguished into fully distributed or partially 148 distributed. Solutions following the given model are presented in 149 [I-D.seite-dmm-dma][I-D.bernardos-dmm-pmip]. 151 3.2. D2: Distributed AF-DP, LM and FM with centralized AF-CP (+ LM) 153 +--------------------------+ 154 | AF-CP (+ LM) | 155 +--------------------------+ 156 ^ ^ 157 | | 158 | | 159 v v 160 +-----------+ +-----------+ 161 | AF-DP | | AF-DP | 162 | LM + FM | (<----->) | LM + FM | 163 +-----------+ +-----------+ 165 +------+ 166 | MN | 167 +------+ 169 Figure 2. Distributed AF-DP, LM and FM functions with centralized 170 AF-CP (+ LM) 171 AF-DP is distributed with LM and FM into deployed mobility routers 172 while AF-CP is centralized in a single entity. For an extensive 173 scenario support, LM may be co-located with the AF-CP. AF-DP is 174 determined by the AF-CP. One possible solution could be to use such 175 as User-Plane Address option to deliver AF-DP IP address serving 176 router or terminal should contact, as proposed in [RFC7389]. 178 3.3. D3: Distributed AF-DP and FM-DP with centralized AF-CP, LM, and 179 FM-CP 181 +--------------------------+ 182 | AF-CP + LM + FM-CP | 183 +--------------------------+ 184 ^ ^ 185 | | 186 | | 187 v v 188 +---------------+ +---------------+ 189 | AF-DP + FM-DP | (<--->) | AF-DP + FM-DP | 190 +---------------+ +---------------+ 192 +------+ 193 | MN | 194 +------+ 196 Figure 3. Distributed AF-DP and FM-DP with centralized AF-CP, LM, 197 and FM-CP 199 In the model, separation of FM-CP and FM-DP is implemented with the 200 separation of AF-CP and AF-DP. The LM is located at the central 201 entity. Comparing D3 with D2, D3 can provide flexibility to make 202 forwarding path between the AF-DP of an allocated IP address and the 203 current serving router where the terminal is attached. 204 [I-D.matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc] may be subject to D3 model, 205 control functions in vEPC delivers Route Update to EPC Edge Routers, 206 to configure data-plane routing path. [I-D.ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp] 207 presents a framework that can facilitate forwarding policy 208 configuration, based on D3 model, imparting a role and 209 characteristics of a mobility router as well as configuring a 210 forwarding path. 212 4. IANA Considerations 214 This document makes no request of IANA. 216 5. Security Considerations 218 T.B.D. 220 6. Acknowledgements 222 7. Normative References 224 [I-D.bernardos-dmm-pmip] 225 Bernardos, C., Oliva, A., and F. Giust, "A PMIPv6-based 226 solution for Distributed Mobility Management", draft- 227 bernardos-dmm-pmip-04 (work in progress), March 2015. 229 [I-D.ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp] 230 Liebsch, M., Matsushima, S., Gundavelli, S., and D. Moses, 231 "Protocol for Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC) in 232 DMM", draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00 (work in progress), May 233 2015. 235 [I-D.matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc] 236 Matsushima, S. and R. Wakikawa, "Stateless user-plane 237 architecture for virtualized EPC (vEPC)", draft- 238 matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-04 (work in progress), 239 March 2015. 241 [I-D.seite-dmm-dma] 242 Seite, P., Bertin, P., and J. Lee, "Distributed Mobility 243 Anchoring", draft-seite-dmm-dma-07 (work in progress), 244 February 2014. 246 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 247 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 249 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., 250 and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. 252 [RFC7333] Chan, H., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen, 253 "Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management", RFC 254 7333, August 2014. 256 [RFC7389] Wakikawa, R., Pazhyannur, R., Gundavelli, S., and C. 257 Perkins, "Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy 258 Mobile IPv6", RFC 7389, October 2014. 260 [RFC7429] Liu, D., Zuniga, JC., Seite, P., Chan, H., and CJ. 261 Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current 262 Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429, January 2015. 264 Authors' Addresses 266 Seil Jeon 267 Instituto de Telecomunicacoes 268 Campus Universitario de Santiago 269 Aveiro 3810-193 270 Portugal 272 Email: seiljeon@av.it.pt 274 Younghan Kim 275 Soongsil University 276 369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu 277 Seoul 156-743 278 Korea 280 Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr